The imposition of a ban on face coverings in France this week leaves a nasty taste in the mouth because of its obvious attempt to criminalise freedom of religious expression. As Viv Groskop notes in her excellent Observer article, this ban is a mealy mouthed attempt to appeal to racist and anti-immigration voters.

Let me be clear: as an atheist, I have no more sympathy for Islam as a religion than I do for Christianity. What I do have sympathy for is a marginalised, excluded Muslim community, scapegoated by majority media and politicians and demonised by an ignorant public. I would feel the same way about minority Christians treated badly in countries ruled by other religions, as they undoubtedly are in other parts of the world. To make someone unemployable – or worse, criminal – for wearing a crucifix or a hijab is purely and simply a discriminatory act. I may disagree with those who would condemn me to everlasting Hell for not agreeing with their religion, but, as Hell doesn’t exist anyway, I will defend their right to do so.

The French law is not, of course, about promoting freedom by banning “covering the face”; it is about persecuting Muslims. Will any Japanese tourists be fined for wearing their cute little medical masks? Will any leggy French woman be marched off to a magistrate for wrapping her expensive designer scarf around her mouth in cold weather? Of course not. The only women with anything to fear are those who wear the hijab for religious reasons. The irony is that anti-Islamists try to convince us that such women cover their faces out of fear of their husbands in the first place. Even if that were true – and the evidence that it is not is mounting – what on earth are we doing putting vulnerable women right in the middle of a rock (Sharia law meted out by their husbands) and a hard place (secular law meted out by the police).

I know what I would describe as a sham marriage. An older man marries a young, naïve woman in order for her to produce babies. Meanwhile, and throughout the marriage, he continues a sexual relationship with a woman who has a husband and who is therefore also in a sham marriage; in fact, he marries said woman after the untimely death of his young wife, who divorces him after years of being cheated on. And yet, that gentleman, Prince Charles himself, will, on his mother’s death, become Defender of that Church of England faith.

It seems only penniless, hunted, despised black people are capable of “sham” marriage, though. The hypocrisy is stunning and vomit inducing.